This yearly digest analyzes all the ITAT stories published in the year 2023 at taxscan.in
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the rejection of the claim of exemption under section 80G of the Income Tax Act,1961 due to utilization of income for religious expenses more than the prescribed limit.
The two-member bench comprising R.S. Syal (Vice-President ) and Partha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial) upheld the order of the Commissioner on the ground of the assessee had spent more than 5% for religious purposes from its total income and there was a clear violation of section 80G(5B) of the Income Tax Act while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The New Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the re-assessment order under section 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 in the name of any non-existing entity was invalid.
The two-member bench comprising Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial) and Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant) held that the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the reassessment order under section 147 of the Income Tax Act against non-existing entity was quashed and declared as void ab-initio while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the addition made by the assessing officer on the ground of disclosure of genuine documents of land purchase under section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two-member bench comprising Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant) held that the addition made by the assessing officer was not as per the law and is liable to be deleted while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The New Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the assessing officer to re-adjudicate the addition made without considering section 55A of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two-member bench comprising Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial) and M. Balaganesh, (Accountant) directed the assessing officer to re-adjudicate the matter without being influenced by the earlier orders while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the assessing officer to re-adjudicate the rejection of the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act,1961 due to utilization of income for nonbusiness activities.
A single-member bench comprising R.S. Syal (Vice President) held that the assessee was eligible to get the claim of deduction of interest income earned and directed the assessing officer to grant the deduction while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the addition made by the assessing officer in respect of share capital without considering the relevant documents and evidence by the assessee.
The two-member pane comprising Sanjay Garg (Judicial) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant) held that the addition made by the assessing officer in respect of share capital and share premium raised by the assessee was not as per the law and liable to be deleted while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not allowable if the assessee owns more than one residential house or property.
The two-member bench comprising Sanjay Garg ( Judicial )and Girish Agrawal (Accountant) held that the impugned revision order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act was bad in law and is liable to be quashed while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the assessing officer to re-adjudicate the disallowance made under section 40(a)(a) of the Income Tax Act,1961 due to nondisclosure of amortization expenditures on books of account.
The two-member panel comprising V Durga Rao (judicial) and Manoj Kumar (Accountant) directed the assessing officer to re-adjudicate the matter in light of additional evidence filed by the revenue while allowing the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for rejecting the appeal filed by the assessee due to mo sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for late filing of the appeal.
A single-member bench comprising V Durga Rao (judicial) directed the Commissioner to condone the delay and re-adjudicate the matter on merits and quashed the impugned order while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the re-application is allowed when an application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been wrongly submitted.
The two-bench member comprising of Anil Chaturvedi (Accountant member) and Yogesh Kumar U.S. (Judicial member) held that it is fit to condone the delay and permit the assessee to file a fresh Form 10A within a period of 30 days from the date of the order and if such Form 10A is filed, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT (E)] shall consider the same on merit and decide the application filed under Section 12A(1)(ac) in accordance with law.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata Bench while restoring the matter before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that no disallowance could be on Goods and Service Tax paid before the due date of filing return of Income.
The Two member bench, consisting of Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member). The matter was remanded back to the FAA with the instruction to examine the challans that provided evidence of the GST payment before the return filing deadline. If the veracity of such payment is established, the first Appellate Authority shall proceed accordingly.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai Bench uphled the penalty imposed for violating the provision of Section 269SS of Income Tax Act 1961 due to accepting loan from companies managing director.
The bench, consisting of Manjunatha G (Accountant Member) and Manomohan Das (Judicial Member), acknowledged that the assessee had received loans from its Managing Director, which constituted a violation of the provisions outlined in Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Additionally, the bench noted that the repayment of loans and advances to the Managing Director in cash also contravened the aforementioned provisions. Consequently, the tribunal deemed it appropriate to impose a penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the assessment order passed violating the principles of natural justice.
The two-bench member consisting of Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial member) and Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant member) held that the merit in the preliminary contention of the assessee towards lack of opportunity to be heard in the light of the date mentioned in the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessment order has preceded the appointed date for response under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. Glaringly, it is not permissible.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of Mumbai Bench held that payment made towards obtaining club membership should not be disallowed.
The bench, consisting of Amarjit Singh Accountant Member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and allowed the Club Membership fees paid by the assessee company.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of Chennai Bench deleted the additions made towards disallowance of proportionate expenses relatable to exempt income.
The bench, consisting of Manjunatha G (Accountant Member) and Manomohan Das (Judicial Member), instructed the Assessing Officer (AO) to eliminate the additions made for the disallowance of proportionate expenses linked to exempt income for all assessment years.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that mere delay on the part of the developer to hand over the possession of the flat would not vitiate the claim of the assessee and thus allowed the capital gain deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The Division Bench comprising of V.Durga Rao, Judicial Member and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member observed that the assessee did not receive any consideration in cash rather the consideration was in the shape of flats only. Therefore, on the date of entering into JDA with the developer, it could be concluded that the assessee made deemed investment to acquire the flats.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the unsecured loan availed by the assessee cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961 as the assessee has proved the genuineness of the loan transaction, and hence deleted the disallowance of interest paid on such loan of 10 crores.
The Bench comprising of Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member and M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member observed that since the assessee has discharged the initial onus of proving the genuineness of the loan transaction, the loan availed could not have been treated as unexplained cash credit in absence of any contrary evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer to disprove assessee’s claim.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed relief to the Steel Authority of India by directing to rework disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without following directions made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).
The two-bench member consisting of Anil Chaturvedi (Accountant member) and Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial member) held that despite the directions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to the assessing officer to grant the credit for TDS and prepaid taxes, the AO has not granted the same. The assessing officer was directed to promptly grant the credit of the prepaid taxes including TDS which is allowable to the assessee in accordance with law at the earliest. Thus, the ground of the assessee is allowed.
The Amritsar Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled before going for addition under Section 40A(7) of the income Tax Act, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity before the revenue authority for processing of rectification under Section 154.
The bench consisting of Dr. M. L. Meena (Accountant Member) and Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) have acknowledged the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice. In order to rectify the violation of natural justice by the revenue authorities towards the assessee, the case has been remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for re-adjudication. The tribunal aims to ensure that the concerns of natural justice are appropriately addressed in this matter.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that mere initiation of penalty proceedings cannot be challenged unless the formal order has been passed.
The two-member bench comprising Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial member) and Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant member) concluded that the current appeal filed by the assessee in relation to the quantum proceedings is unnecessary. It was determined that both the assessee and the Revenue are in agreement regarding the taxability of the interest on income compensation received from the NOIDA Development Authority.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no enhancement to the assessed income can be made without giving opportunity to the assessee of showing cause against any proposed enhancement.
The Bench comprising of Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member and Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member observed that the CIT(A) was prevented from making enhancement to the assessed income without opportunity to the assessee. Thus it was mandatory requirement of law to necessarily provide opportunity failing which the enhancement carried out is unsustainable in law.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Delhi ruled that if there is additional jewelry beyond what was accounted for in the wealth tax assessment, the taxpayer must provide a more detailed explanation in their Wealth Tax Returns (WTR) to meet the requirements of Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench comprising of Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member and Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member observed that in the case of a wealth-tax assessee, gold jewellery and ornaments found in excess of the gross weight declared in the wealth-tax return only need to be seized, hence the plea of assessee that the excess 770.9 grams, was all “stridhan” is rather a self destructive plea to take benefit of Circular No. 1916 which CIT (A) failed to appreciate.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of the Mumbai Bench has deleted the tax imposed on interest received from the Income Tax Department.
The bench consisting of Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted the tax imposed on interest received from the Income Tax Department.
The New Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the assessing officer to re-adjudicate the disallowance made on club expenses due to the use of expenses for the personal benefit of directors.
The two-member bench comprising Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial) and Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant) directed the assessing officer to re-adjudicate the disallowance and reduced it to 5% on an estimated basis while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search operation conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act,1961 is liable to be deleted.
The bench stated that in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments and no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the assessment proceedings cannot be initiated on fallacious assumptions, therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was quashed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled in various cases that initiating assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on the erroneous assumption or suspicion that bank deposits represent undisclosed income, without considering the possibility that the source of the deposits may not necessarily be the assessee’s income, is both unsupported and legally unsustainable.
The impugned assessment order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] was set aside and the assessment order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act was quashed.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the addition made by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] on a 5% estimated basis on bogus purchase.
The bench consisting of two members, Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member) Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial Member) reviewed the arguments presented by both parties dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no penalty can be imposed under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without any evident reason.
The two-bench member consisting of Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial member) and Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant member) observed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has deleted the additions made by the assessing officer in the hands of the appellant in view of the order of ITSC in the case M/s. Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, it was concluded that the penalty imposed on the assessee and two other persons by JCIT Central Range Gurgaon after said assessment order is not sustainable.
The New Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without a speaking order on merits.
The two-member bench comprising Anil Chaturvedi (Accountant) and Yogesh Kumar Us (Judicial) directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to re-adjudicate the matter by granting a sufficient opportunity of hearing to both the parties while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the assessing officer to re-adjudicate the rejection of the registration application under section 80G of the Income Tax Act,1961 without granting the proper opportunity to the assessee.
The two-member bench comprising Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial) and Dipak P. Ripote (Accountant) directed the assessing officer to re-adjudicate the application of registration filed by the assessee on merits while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that an order cannot be passed when an application for delay condonation is pending before the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).
The two-bench member comprising of Durga Rao (Judicial member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant member) set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and remitted the matter back to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to wait for the decision on the condonation petition filed by the assessee before the CBDT and thereafter pass an order in accordance with the law.
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the addition made by the assessing officer on money receipts on the ground of seizure of relevant documents under section 292C of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two-member bench comprising S.S. Godara (Judicial) and Dr. Dipak P. Ripote( Accountant) upheld the addition made by the assessing officer on the money receipts while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. ITAT, upheld, addition, assessing officer, Income Tax Act, money receipts, assessee, relevant documents, search , proceeding, order.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the order discrediting the valuation report of the assessee without substantial reason where there is a failure to call for the mandate of DVO report under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two-bench member consisting of Anil Chaturvedi (Accountant member) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial member) is of the opinion that when the onus is on a party to prove a fact by a valuation report then the valuation report cannot be considered to be a self-serving document of that party without being disputed on facts.
Thus, having failed to take the opportunity and mandate under law to call for a DVO report and on the other hand having discredited the valuation report of the assessee without substantial reasons makes the order of Tax Authorities Below erroneous and not sustainable under law. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) disallowed the addition made on income tax return on the ground that the cash deposits are unexplained and hence set aside the exparte decree of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)].
The Bench comprising of Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member and Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member observed that it is a well settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be offered to the parties and no parties should be condemned unheard, thus CIT (A) has failed to follow the mandate required in Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act in dismissing the appeal without considering the issue on merits.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the income earned from commercial activity cannot be claimed as a deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The single-bench member, consisting of Suchitra Kamble (Judicial member), concluded that the activities conducted by the Pump Division are subject to full taxation and do not fall within the scope of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the present assessee’s case in respect of Pump Division has rightly denied the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Thus, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
The Mumbai Bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that no addition could be made on belated deposits of Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance Corporation before the amendment in Sec 36(1) (va) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
It was observed by the tribunal that amendment to section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act would not be applicable to assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has deposited the employee’s contribution of Provident fund & ESIC before the due date of return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the bench, consisting of M Balaganesh (Accountant Member) and Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial Member) deleted the disallowance on employee contribution of provident fund (PF) and ESIC.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the value attributed to non-updated stocks amounts to taxation.
Manjunatha G (Accountant Member) and Manmohan Das (Judicial Member), who form the two-member bench, believed that providing 50% relief to the assessee would serve the purpose of justice, and both parties involved have no objections to this proposal. The relief was raised from 25% to 50% and the assessing officer was directed to reduce the addition by Rs. 13,43,700/- from the addition made of Rs. 26,87,517/-. The addition to the extent of Rs. 13,43,517/- is sustained. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
The Gauhati Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT),held that if the payee has no liability to pay tax on exempt income, the liability to deduct tax at source in the hands of the payer cannot be fastened, therefore, assessee cannot be held to be ‘assessee in default’.
The Bench comprising of Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member observed that the assessee is in default in respect of not deducting tax at source on the rent payments made by it, exceeding the threshold limit of Rs.1,80,000/- per year.Further, the Tribunal stated that if the payee has no liability to pay tax on such income, the liability to deduct tax at source in the hands of the payer cannot be fastened. Thus, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source from the payment of rents paid by it.
In a ruling by the Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), it was determined that the burden of proof lies with the assessee to demonstrate that the capital gains did not accrue to her.
The Bench comprising of Mahavir Singh, Vice President and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member observed that though the assessee has made certain submissions in support of her claim, it has miserably failed to substantiate the same. Hence, considering the stated factual matrix and keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, the Bench granted another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case. The appeal has been returned to the file for a fresh adjudication, while keeping all matters open, and the assessee has been instructed to substantiate her case accordingly.
The Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the waiver of the principal amount of Rs.14,89,99,689 which was taken for trading purposes and credited to the profit & loss account of the assessee, is considered as the income in the hands of the assessee and hence is taxable under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The Bench comprising R.K. Panda, Accountant Member and K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member observed that the waiver of the principal amount of Rs.14,89,99,689, which was taken for trading purposes and credited to the profit & loss account of the assessee, results in income in the hands of the assessee and falls under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act being benefit arising from the business and accordingly would be taxable.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the addition based on seized scribbling on rough notes found during the search proceedings.
Hence, a bench consisting of two members, Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member) and Aby T Varkey (Judicial Member) reviewed the arguments presented by both parties. The bench concluded that the document seized from search proceedings is not a dumb document and been properly analysed with supporting corroborative evidence. Thus, the bench upheld the decision of the CIT(A).
The Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration.
The Bench comprising of Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member &K.Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member observed that in the case of M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. vs. CIT it is held that, “the amendment of section 14A of the Act which is ‘for removal of doubt’ cannot be presumed to be retrospective even where such language is used, if it alters or changes law as it earlier stood”.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the appeal of the assessee and delete the disallowance made under Sections 10A, 40(a)(ia) and 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act,1961, and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to grant the credit of tax deducted at source (TDS).
The Bench comprising of Ramod Kumar, Vice President and Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member while dealing with the disallowance of expenses for non-deduction of taxes under Section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, observed that, since these details were not examined by the lower authorities, therefore, it was appropriate to remand this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. It was noted that since the issue is regarding the correct computation of deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act and regarding same assessee’s rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act is still pending, therefore, remanded the issue to the file of AO for necessary adjudication after consideration of all the details.
Further, the bench directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance made under Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1) (va) of the Income Tax Act, and to grant the credit of tax deducted at source after necessary verification and as per law.
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the disallowance in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution Fund (EPF).
The tribunal relied upon the decision of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT wherein it has been held that “deduction u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount collected towards employees’ contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.”
Additionally, the tribunal reviewed that the conditions of section 43B Income Tax Act prescribing the due date as the date of filing of return of income in case the employers’ contribution towards ESI/PF would not be applicable in case the employees’ contribution as provided under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act and that the due date in respect of deposit of employees’ contribution would be such as prescribed under Section 36(l)(va) of the Income Tax Act.
The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that no addition could be made on interest received from an arbitration award for settlement dispute with respect to contract of payment.
The two members Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, (Accountant Member) Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and held that the interest is on delayed payment of the contract amount executed by the assessee and as decided by the apex court in the case of CIT Vs. Govinda Choudhury this interest is only an accretion to the assessee’s receipts from the contracts. It is obviously attributable and incidental to the business carried on by him.
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the addition made under section 69A of Income Tax Act 1961 towards the purchase of windmills based on dump unsigned documents .
A bench consisting of two members, Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) and V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) reviewed the arguments presented by both parties observed that addition, has been made on mere presumptions and assumptions of cash payment by the assessee which is not backed up by any evidence on record.
The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that capital gain tax should not be chargeable to immovable property gifted to daughter-in-law by wrongly executed sale deed instead of gift deed.
A bench consisting of two members, Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant Member): Dr. S. Seethalakshmi (Judicial Member) reviewed the arguments presented by both parties and held that no capital gain can be computed in respect of the sale deed executed in favour of daughter -in- law as it is only a gift to close relatives and not a sale.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
